Hypocrisy: Tomi Lahren on ACA (Parent's Insurance)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #1
    Oh Tomi....

    https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tomi-lahren-obamacare-parents-insurance/?fb=dd

    Tomi Lahren said Saturday that she hates Obamacare. The popular conservative commentator thinks the healthcare law should be repealed, and she’s clearly angry that GOP Sen. John McCain cast one of the deciding votes against the effort.

    So, there’s no way that Lahren would ever actually take advantage of one of Obamacare’s most popular provisions that allows children up to the age of 26 to stay on their parents’ healthcare plan, right?

    Well, actually …

    During a debate with comedian Chelsea Handler on Saturday at Politicon, this is what Lahren said.

    “Luckily, I am 24, so I am still on my parents’ plan,” Lahren said.
     
  2. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #2
    Yeah, that's about it.

    I don't really know what to do about people like Lahren. Where do you begin? Education obviously failed her. So did religion. Her parents. Hanging out with her peers. Watching too much television?

    Kudos to Chelsea Handler for hosting a debate with this woman. She's got a lot more patience than I do.
     
  3. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #3
    She's an idiot that rose to fame on her good looks, fast talking, and angry message. Early on, when her fast rants were scripted on facebook, it was hard to notice she was a moron.

    Now that she's actually responding to questions and trying to argue in real-time, her lack of education and experience has become very clear. I mean, Trevor Noah isn't exactly a expert debater, and he wiped the table with her.

    I hope she decides to do something better with her life. We don't need another pundit that doesn't know anything about the topic of conversation.
     
  4. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #4
    Maybe she can become President of the United States.
     
  5. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #5
    Had to think about this for a second actually. Yes, even a 24-year old idiot with no experience in anything is more qualified president than Trump.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    The worst of oclueless care was repealed basically already. I'm good with that
     
  7. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #7
    Can we repeal and replace Tomi? Trump?
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Tomi? no
    Trump? 2020
    but if you send Kamala or Clinton then you are DOOMED :D
     
  9. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    If Trump testifies (guilty or not) - he will perjure himself and be out before 2020. A big if... but that's how he'll be shown the door.
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    others have committed perjury while being POTUS ...........
     
  11. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #11
    Yup. But none have been Trump.
     
  12. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
    good glad you are happy now the world can start turning again.
     
  13. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #13
    Hypocrisy from a far right wing person? No, never.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    everyone who did not pay the stupid penalty is happy :D
     
  15. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #15
    What are you referring to?
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    people are no longer being extorted into paying the fee if they don't have insurance, that is good enough for me, the rest can stay.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    Quibbling here ... but you can simultaneously comply with a law yet desire to see that law changed or repealed, and not be a hypocrite in my book.

    I've often advocated for increasing taxes, and have been asked why I don't just send Washington more of my money. The reason is that I shouldn't sacrifice my own personal wealth to solve a larger social problem. I'd be happy to spend more so long as the rest of society complied as well because the problem is so big that it requires collective effort while any individual contribution would simply hurt the person and not solve anything.

    So likewise, Tomi could agree with a collective effort to repeal the ACA, even while she saves money on it because she shouldn't bear a personal hit over an issue that is so much bigger than her.
     
  18. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #18
    You're referring to the individual mandate penalty? It hasn't been repealed.

    It was always possible (for many, anyway - myself included) to avoid paying it. That remains true and enforcement policies under the current administration may make it even easier to avoid paying it. But it's still in place and those who don't have the required coverage (and aren't exempt) still owe it.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    IRS is no longer enforcing collection so it basically is repealed.
     
  20. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #20
    First, even if the IRS was no longer enforcing collection of the mandate penalty that wouldn't mean that it basically is repealed. People would still be liable for it and might be made to pay it in the future, to include amounts that were due in the past but not collected. A new administration, for instance, could change enforcement policies and cause the IRS to seek to collect not only penalties that would be due going forward but those that weren't collected in the past.

    Second, as far as I'm aware the IRS is still enforcing collection of the mandate penalty. If you have information to the contrary, I'd appreciate a pointer. If you're referring to the decision by the IRS to extend the policy of not rejecting returns simply because a filer doesn't indicate coverage status, that doesn't mean that the IRS isn't collecting the mandate penalty. That had been the policy previously - i.e., under the Obama administration - though such policy had been set to change this year. And the IRS was, even with that policy which has now been extended, collecting mandate penalties. There have recently been efforts in Congress to stop the IRS from enforcing the mandate penalty - efforts that don't involve a broader repeal of ObamaCare - but they've not yet been successful.

    As I indicated previously, it was already possible to avoid paying the mandate penalty. And, changes in enforcement policy could make it easier to do so. (Though, to be clear again, the decision to which I believe you are alluding doesn't represent a change in enforcement policy - it represents a continuation of enforcement policy as opposed to the change to enforcement policy which had been planned.) But the mandate penalty continues to be enforced and, at any rate, it hasn't been repealed - in effect, or otherwise.
     
  21. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #21
    I can't see any administration proactively employing such a law. The fallout would be immense. That's a lot of instant debt for a lot of people.
     
  22. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #22
    See Section 2 of the executive order.
    Not repealed obviously, but the agencies were directed to waive, defer, or grant exemption.
    A waived/exempted fee cannot legally be collected at a later date unless the initial waiver/exemption was deemed illegal. Only a deferred fee can collected at a later date.

    Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal
     
  23. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #23
    I'm familiar with that executive order. It's what lead to the IRS deciding to extend the policy which I referred to in the previous post.

    But it does not mean that the IRS is no longer collecting the mandate penalty. Even in light of that executive order, the IRS released a statement in February indicating, among other things, that provisions of ObamaCare remain in force and that taxpayers are still required to pay what they owe under that law - to include, the mandate penalty if they don't have the required coverage. The IRS's response to the executive order was to continue the policy which it had previously followed of not rejecting returns just because they didn't indicate coverage status.

    Enforcement of the mandate penalty was always weak. It was set up that way and, especially in light of what the Supreme Court said in NFIB v Sebelius, what the IRS can do in order to collect mandate penalties is quite limited. The government has, even under President Obama, been fairly accommodating when it comes to waivers or exemptions. Regardless, enforcement continues and, to a great degree, in a manner similar to what had previously been the case.

    When I (in the previous post) referred to mandate penalties which hadn't been collected later being collected, I wasn't referring to penalties which had been waived or regarding which a given taxpayer was exempt. I was referring to penalties which just hadn't been collected - e.g., because the IRS wasn't aware they were owed because it didn't know that someone didn't have coverage because they didn't indicate as much on their return. The IRS hasn't, as far as I'm aware, announced new polices for granting waivers or exemptions pursuant to that executive order. That's not to say that it won't in the future. But that executive order does not mean that the IRS is supposed to waive the penalty for everyone, and the IRS has - at least initially - indicated that it is not doing so.
     

Share This Page